Multi-year works plan and DTG: what the buyer of an investment building inherits at closing

An investor who acquires units in a 1960s Parisian co-ownership (copropriété) building rarely buys a technically neutral property. He or she buys a schedule of works already voted, a works fund cash reserve that will never be recovered, and a calendar of capital calls whose allocation between seller and buyer is decided at the point they fall due, not at the point they are voted. Since the regime introduced by the Climate and Resilience Act has applied to co-ownerships of every size, the multi-year works plan (plan pluriannuel de travaux, PPT) has ceased to be a property manager's document and has become a line of latent liability, quantified, dated and enforceable. This guide treats the multi-year works plan in co-ownership, the global technical diagnosis (diagnostic technique global, DTG) and the works fund as valuation parameters: what the buyer inherits exactly on the date ownership transfers, what can be negotiated, and what must be secured by a clause in the deed.

The PPT is no longer a management option: what Article 14-2 actually requires

The multi-year works plan is governed by Article 14-2 of Law No. 65-557 of 10 July 1965, in the wording resulting from Article 171 of Law No. 2021-1104 of 22 August 2021. The trigger is purely chronological:

On expiry of a period of fifteen years from the date of acceptance of the construction works of the building, a draft multi-year works plan is prepared for buildings wholly or partly used for residential purposes that are subject to this law. It is updated every ten years.

Two points call for vigilance on the buyer's part. First, the criterion is neither the apparent age of the building nor its state of disrepair: it is the date of acceptance of the construction works. Second, the ten-year update means that a PPT prepared under the first wave of entry into force will be revised, and a revision may bring to light items absent from the version provided at the preliminary agreement stage.

The content of the draft plan is set out in four headings by paragraph I of Article 14-2: the list of works necessary to safeguard the building, to preserve the health and safety of the occupants, to achieve energy savings and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions; an estimate of the level of performance that these works make it possible to reach; a summary estimate of the cost of these works and their prioritisation; a proposed schedule for the works whose completion appears necessary within the next ten years. It is this fourth heading that directly concerns the financial modelling of the transaction: it provides a ten-year profile of disbursements, share by share.

Two votes, two majorities, two distinct consequences for the asset

Article 14-2 provides for two votes that must be carefully distinguished in due diligence.

The arrangements for preparing the draft plan are placed on the agenda by the property manager (syndic) and voted by a majority of the votes cast by the co-owners present, represented or having voted by correspondence, that is, the Article 24 majority. At this stage, the co-ownership commits only the cost of the study.

The adoption of all or part of the draft plan is, for its part, subject to the majority of the votes of all the co-owners, that of Article 25. It is this vote that turns a forward-looking document into a programme of works and that moves the works fund into a reinforced contribution regime.

Paragraph II of Article 14-2 adds a permanent reminder mechanism: in light of the decisions taken by the meeting to which the draft was presented, the property manager places on the agenda of each general meeting called to approve the accounts either the question of adopting all or part of the draft, if it has not been adopted, or the decisions relating to the implementation of the schedule of the adopted plan. In other words, a draft PPT that has not been adopted does not lapse: it returns every year. A buyer who purchases on the strength of the absence of adoption is in reality buying an annual probability of a vote, over whose timing and amount he or she has no control.

The administrative authority's power to act in place of the co-ownership

Paragraph III of Article 14-2 allows the competent administrative authority, within the framework of its powers over the safety and sanitary condition of buildings, to ask the property manager at any time to send it the adopted multi-year works plan. Failing transmission within one month of notification of the request, or if the plan sent manifestly does not prescribe the works necessary to preserve the safety of the occupants, the authority may prepare or update the draft plan of its own motion, in place of the co-ownership and at its expense. The property manager then convenes the meeting, which votes on the adoption of all or part of that draft.

For an investor positioned on a deteriorated asset, this power of substitution changes the nature of the risk: the scheduling of works may escape the governance of the co-ownership, and the cost of preparation of its own motion falls within the charges of the co-ownership.

DTG, collective EPC and PPT: three documents, three regimes

The most frequent confusion consists in presenting the PPT as the logical sequel to the global technical diagnosis. The texts in force say otherwise.

The mandatory foundation of the draft PPT is the energy performance certificate (diagnostic de performance énergétique, DPE) referred to in Article L. 126-31 of the French Construction and Housing Code, except where the exemption provided for in the second paragraph of that same article applies. That article, in the wording resulting from Law No. 2026-403 of 26 May 2026, provides that every multi-unit residential building for which the building permit was filed before 1 January 2013 must have a DPE, renewed or updated every ten years, except where a diagnosis carried out after 1 July 2021 shows that the building falls within class A, B or C. The obligations attached to the collective DPE and the energy audit are analysed in our article on the operability of an investment building.

The global technical diagnosis, for its part, is incorporated where applicable only where it has been carried out. And carrying it out is not the default rule: Article L. 731-1 of the Construction and Housing Code provides only that the general meeting decides on the question of having a DTG carried out, the decision and its arrangements being approved by the Article 24 majority. A global technical diagnosis of a co-ownership may therefore perfectly well not exist in an older building, without any irregularity.

Two situations nonetheless make the DTG unavoidable, and they directly concern the investor:

• Article L. 731-4 of the Construction and Housing Code: Any conversion into co-ownership of a building constructed more than ten years ago is preceded by the global technical diagnosis provided for in Article L. 731-1. The buyer of an entire investment building who is considering a division must build this cost and this lead time into the roadmap;
• Article L. 731-5 of the Construction and Housing Code: within the framework of the procedures of Chapter I of Title I of Book V, the administrative authority may ask the property manager to produce the DTG for a building showing potential defects; failing production within one month of notification, it may have it carried out of its own motion in place of the co-ownership and at its expense.

The content of the DTG was strengthened by Law No. 2024-322 of 9 April 2024, which added to point 2° of Article L. 731-1 the technical condition of the building and of the common equipment with regard to legal and regulatory construction obligations. The DTG also includes an analysis of the apparent condition of the common parts and common equipment, an analysis of possible improvements to technical and asset management, and a DPE. It shows a summary assessment of the cost and a list of the necessary works, specifying in particular those that should be carried out within the next ten years. Article L. 731-2 of the Construction and Housing Code provides for its presentation to the first general meeting following its completion or revision.

Only one mechanism produces an exemption, and it is to be interpreted strictly: if the global technical diagnosis shows no need for works during the ten years following its preparation, the co-ownership is exempt from the obligation to prepare a draft PPT. This exemption applies to the PPT only. It does not exempt the co-ownership from setting up a works fund.

The works fund: cash permanently lost to the seller

This is the point most poorly handled in price negotiations, and the easiest to quantify.

Article 14-2-1 of the 1965 Law requires the co-ownership, in buildings wholly or partly used for residential purposes, to set up a works fund at the end of a period of ten years from the date of acceptance of the construction works of the building. The threshold is therefore ten years, whereas the PPT is triggered at fifteen. The fund is intended to cover the preparation of the draft PPT and, where applicable, of the DTG, the carrying out of the works provided for in the adopted plan, works decided by the property manager in an emergency, and works necessary to safeguard the building, to preserve the health and safety of the occupants and to achieve energy savings, not provided for in the plan.

The amount of the mandatory annual contribution depends directly on the adoption of the plan. Where the meeting has adopted the PPT, the amount of the annual contribution may not be less than 2.5% of the amount of the works provided for in the adopted plan and 5% of the forecast budget. Where no plan has been adopted, the floor is 5% of the forecast budget. The meeting, voting by a majority of the votes of all the co-owners, may decide on a higher amount.

The consequence for modelling is mechanical: the adoption of a PPT covering a heavy programme raises the contribution floor for the whole duration of the plan. A buyer who signs a preliminary agreement while the draft plan is on the agenda of the next meeting must model the adoption scenario, not only the status quo.

Paragraph II of Article 14-2-1 governs the regime's relief valve: the meeting decides on the question of suspending contributions where the amount of the fund exceeds the forecast budget and, where a plan has been adopted, where that amount also exceeds 50% of the amount of the works provided for in the plan.

Paragraph III of Article 14-2-1: the clause for buying back the fund, an option and not a claim

The text is unambiguous:

The sums paid into the works fund are attached to the units and become permanently, as soon as they are paid, part of the assets of the co-ownership. They are not refunded by the co-ownership on the transfer of a unit. The buyer may agree to pay the seller an amount equivalent to those sums in addition to the sale price of the unit.

Three lessons for negotiation. First, the seller has no claim for restitution against the co-ownership: the accumulated cash is lost to the seller unless it is monetised in the sale. Second, the buyback by the buyer is a contractual option, never an entitlement: the practice of some sellers of presenting the unit's share of the fund as an automatic price supplement has no basis in the text. Third, this share is known before the preliminary agreement, since point d of 2° of paragraph II of Article L. 721-2 of the Construction and Housing Code requires disclosure of the amount of the share of the works fund attached to the main unit sold and of the amount of the last contribution paid by the seller in respect of the unit.

The buyer's position is therefore as follows: accepting the buyback makes sense only if the share of the fund is actually allocated to works included in the plan and already under way, and if the main price has been adjusted, in return, for the residual cost of the programme. The tax treatment of a payment in addition to the price for the purposes of the transfer duty base deserves to be settled with the notary, text in hand, before the preliminary agreement is drafted.

Due diligence: what Article L. 721-2 of the Construction and Housing Code puts on the table, and what it leaves off

Since the reform, the pre-contractual information given to the buyer of a co-ownership unit expressly includes the PPT. Paragraph II of Article L. 721-2 of the Construction and Housing Code requires the delivery, at the latest on the date the preliminary agreement is signed:

• under 5°: where applicable, the conclusions of the global technical diagnosis referred to in the last paragraph of Article L. 731-1;
• under 6°: the multi-year works plan adopted under the conditions provided for in the first paragraph of paragraph II of Article 14-2;
• under 7°: failing an adopted plan, the draft multi-year works plan […] if it has been prepared;
• under d of 2°: the share of the works fund attached to the main unit sold and the last contribution paid by the seller;
• under 3°: the building's maintenance log.

This last point is under-used in practice. Article 14-2 provides that the works prescribed in the multi-year works plan, together with their schedule and, where applicable, those prescribed by the DTG, are included in the building's maintenance log provided for in Article 18. The maintenance log therefore makes it possible to cross-check the PPT supplied by the seller and to detect an obsolete or truncated version.

Two exceptions limit the scope of the regime, and they target exactly the investor configurations: the documents under 1° and 3° to 7° are not required where the buyer already owns at least one unit in the same co-ownership, and the documents under c of 1° and 3° to 7° are not required on the sale of an ancillary unit (parking space, cellar, attic, storeroom, cupboard, shed, garage, store). An investor who strengthens his or her position in a co-ownership where he or she already holds a unit therefore benefits from no automatic delivery of the PPT: it must be required contractually, by an information clause binding the seller and coupled with a condition precedent.

The sanction for failure to deliver is narrower than is said

Article L. 721-3 of the Construction and Housing Code postpones the start of the withdrawal period under Article L. 271-1 only where there is a failure to deliver the documents referred to in 1° and 2° of paragraph II of Article L. 721-2 and, at the stage of the authentic deed not preceded by a preliminary agreement, those under 1° and c of 2°. Points 5° to 7°, that is, the conclusions of the DTG, the adopted PPT and the draft PPT, are not covered by this postponement mechanism.

The strategic consequence is clear: the statutory protection does not cover the core of the technical risk. The informed buyer does not rely on the postponement of the withdrawal period. He or she makes delivery of the PPT and, if it exists, of the DTG a condition precedent of the preliminary agreement, with a review period and a right to renegotiate if the residual cost of the programme exceeds an agreed threshold.

Allocation between seller and buyer: the due date governs, not the date of the vote

This is the classic closing trap. The default rule appears in Article 6-2 of Decree No. 67-223 of 17 March 1967, in the wording resulting from Decree No. 2025-1292 of 22 December 2025. On the transfer of a unit for consideration:

• payment of the instalment falling due under the forecast budget is the seller's responsibility;
• payment of the instalments for expenditure not included in the forecast budget is the responsibility of whichever of the seller or the buyer is a co-owner at the time it falls due;
• any excess or shortfall in instalments, revealed by the approval of the accounts, is credited or debited to the account of whoever is a co-owner when the accounts are approved.

Capital calls for the PPT fall into the second category. Paragraph II of Article 14-1 of the 1965 Law provides that the co-ownership's expenditure on works is not included in the forecast budget and that the corresponding sums fall due according to the arrangements voted by the general meeting.

The criterion is therefore the due date of the call, set by the meeting, and not the date the works were voted. A programme voted two years before closing, whose calls fall due after ownership transfers, weighs entirely on the buyer in the absence of a contrary stipulation. Conversely, a schedule set on an early due date leaves the burden with the seller even though the buyer will capture the value of the works. On the allocation of charges between seller and buyer, including for works voted before the transfer, see our analysis of the settlement of co-ownership charges on a sale.

What the allocation clause should contain

The allocation under Article 6-2 is a default rule. Three stipulations deserve systematic discussion in a deed concerning a unit burdened by an adopted PPT:

• a clause allocating the residual cost of the programme by date of vote or by date of execution, and not by due date, with an item-by-item breakdown of the plan's schedule;
• an escrow clause placing a fraction of the price in the notary's hands, released as capital calls fall due for works voted before closing;
• a clause providing for the assumption of calls relating to works voted between the preliminary agreement and the deed, coupled with an obligation to inform the seller immediately of any notice of a general meeting during the interim period and, where appropriate, a voting proxy.

The dated statement (état daté): a valuation document, not a formality

Article 5 of the 1967 Decree, rewritten by Decree No. 2025-1292 of 22 December 2025, structures the dated statement (état daté) in three parts. The first lists the sums that may remain owed to the co-ownership by the selling co-owner: instalments due under the forecast budget, instalments due for expenditure not included in the forecast budget, unpaid charges for prior financial years, sums referred to in Article 33 of the 1965 Law, advances due, the amount still owed by the seller who participates in the loan taken out under Article 26-4, and the amount paid by the guarantee institution referred to in Articles 26-7 and 26-12 in the event of the seller's default.

The third part is the one the buyer should read first: it states the sums that should fall to the buyer, including instalments not yet due within expenditure not included in the forecast budget. It is on this line that the residual cost of the voted PPT appears, unit by unit. The annex to this third part also states, for the two preceding financial years, the share attributable to each unit in the forecast budget and in total expenditure outside the forecast budget, and mentions where applicable the subject matter and status of pending proceedings to which the co-ownership is a party. A construction dispute pending in the name of the co-ownership changes the analysis of the works programme: it may defer its execution as well as alter its financing.

The two closing risks arising from Article 20

Paragraph I of Article 20 of the 1965 Law provides for the property manager's objection. If the seller has not presented to the notary a certificate from the property manager, dated less than one month earlier, stating that the seller is free of any obligation towards the co-ownership, the notary notifies the property manager of the transfer by registered letter with acknowledgement of receipt within fifteen days of the date ownership transfers. The property manager may, before the expiry of fifteen days from receipt of that notice, lodge an objection to the payment of the funds by extrajudicial instrument, with an address for service within the jurisdiction of the judicial court where the building is located and, on pain of nullity, a statement of the amount and grounds of the claim. Since Law No. 2024-322 of 9 April 2024, a valid objection operates in the co-ownership's favour as enforcement of the statutory mortgage referred to in Article 19-1. The terminology of the special real property privilege is no longer used. The regime of the special statutory mortgage of the co-ownership, from its base to its enforcement on the sale of the unit, is set out in our article devoted to it.

Paragraph II of Article 20 creates a risk specific to the multi-unit investor. Before the authentic deed, the notary notifies the property manager of the name of the prospective buyer or, for a French civil property company (société civile immobilière) or a general partnership (société en nom collectif), the names of the corporate officers and partners, together with those of their spouses or civil partners (PACS). If any of these persons is already a co-owner in the building and has been served with a formal notice to pay that has remained unsuccessful for more than forty-five days, the notary notifies the parties that the sale cannot be concluded. A period of thirty days from that notification is available to discharge the debt; failing a certificate produced at the end of that period, the preliminary contract is deemed null and void, with the buyer at fault.

An unpaid works fund contribution on another unit held by the same structure, or by a partner of the buying SCI, is therefore enough to cause the transaction to fail, with the buyer at fault. The prior audit must cover the charges position of all the entities and persons referred to in paragraph II of Article 20, and not only that of the unit being acquired.

Acquisition of a whole building and division: an area to secure before the offer

Articles 14-2 and 14-2-1 apply to buildings subject to this law. The acquisition of an investment building held in single ownership therefore does not, at the date of acquisition, fall within the scope of the PPT or of the works fund. The interaction with a division project nonetheless deserves a dedicated analysis, case by case, because Article L. 731-4 of the Construction and Housing Code requires that the conversion into co-ownership of a building constructed more than ten years ago be preceded by a global technical diagnosis. To this is added, in single ownership as in co-ownership, the collective DPE obligation under Article L. 126-31 of the Construction and Housing Code for every multi-unit residential building for which the building permit was filed before 1 January 2013.

An investor who acquires in order to divide must therefore budget for the DTG ahead of the conversion into co-ownership, then for the setting up of the works fund and, depending on the date of acceptance of the building, the preparation of a draft PPT. The cost of these obligations does not disappear with single ownership: it is deferred to the division phase.

Timetable for application: all co-ownerships are affected in 2026

Paragraph VI of Article 171 of Law No. 2021-1104 staggered the entry into force of the regime: 1 January 2023 for co-ownerships comprising more than two hundred units used for housing, offices or shops; 1 January 2024 for those comprising between fifty-one and two hundred units; 1 January 2025 for those comprising no more than fifty units.

Paragraph VII postpones the buyer information obligation by one year: 1 January 2024 above two hundred units, 1 January 2025 between fifty-one and two hundred units, 1 January 2026 for co-ownerships of no more than fifty units. In October 2026, the entire stock is therefore covered, but a preliminary agreement signed in 2024 or 2025 for a small building could not be challenged under points 6° and 7° of Article L. 721-2. This time lag remains relevant when assessing the regularity of earlier transactions still within the limitation period.

Conclusion: treat the PPT as a debt line, not as an annex

The adopted multi-year works plan is a ten-year liability for the unit's share, whose due date is set by a third party, the general meeting, over which the minority buyer has no control. The works fund is, symmetrically, cash that has already left the seller's assets and belongs to the co-ownership, which Article 14-2-1 III allows the buyer to monetise but never obliges the buyer to buy back. Between the two, the default rule of Article 6-2 of the 1967 Decree places on the buyer every call falling due after ownership transfers, including for works voted well before the buyer's arrival.

The right trade-off is therefore not to rule out buildings carrying a heavy PPT: those are often the best documented, and therefore the most easily modelled. It is to refuse to pay twice, once through the price and once through capital calls. Three reflexes before any firm offer: quantify the residual cost of the programme from the plan's schedule and the third part of the dated statement, cross-check this figure against the maintenance log and the minutes of the last three meetings, then negotiate an allocation clause by date of vote coupled with an escrow. If the seller refuses the clause, the liability is in the price: have it taken out of the price before signing the preliminary agreement, not after.

Frequently asked questions

From when is a multi-year works plan mandatory in a co-ownership? Article 14-2 of the Law of 10 July 1965 requires a draft multi-year works plan to be prepared on expiry of a period of fifteen years from the date of acceptance of the construction works of the building, in buildings wholly or partly used for residential purposes that are subject to the 1965 Law. The plan is then updated every ten years. The regime came into force in waves: 1 January 2023 above two hundred units, 1 January 2024 between fifty-one and two hundred units, 1 January 2025 for co-ownerships of no more than fifty units.

Is the global technical diagnosis mandatory before buying in an older co-ownership? No. Article L. 731-1 of the Construction and Housing Code provides only that the general meeting decides on the question of having a global technical diagnosis carried out, by the Article 24 majority. It is required in only two cases: any conversion into co-ownership of a building constructed more than ten years ago (Article L. 731-4 of the Construction and Housing Code) and at the request of the administrative authority, which may have it carried out of its own motion at the co-ownership's expense failing production within one month (Article L. 731-5 of the Construction and Housing Code). The mandatory foundation of the draft PPT is the collective DPE under Article L. 126-31 of the Construction and Housing Code, not the DTG.

Can the seller demand reimbursement of his or her share of the works fund? No. Paragraph III of Article 14-2-1 provides that the sums paid into the works fund are attached to the units and become permanently, as soon as they are paid, part of the assets of the co-ownership, and that they are not refunded by the co-ownership on the transfer of a unit. The same text provides that the buyer may agree to pay the seller an equivalent amount in addition to the price. This is a negotiating option, never a claim of the seller.

Who pays works capital calls voted before the sale but called after it? Absent a contrary clause, Article 6-2 of the Decree of 17 March 1967 places payment of instalments for expenditure not included in the forecast budget on whichever of the seller or the buyer is a co-owner at the time they fall due. The criterion is therefore the due date of the call, set by the meeting under paragraph II of Article 14-1, and not the date the works were voted. An allocation clause by date of vote, coupled with an escrow held by the notary, is the only way to reverse this rule.

Does the absence of a PPT from the preliminary agreement file extend the withdrawal period? No. Article L. 721-3 of the Construction and Housing Code postpones the start of the period under Article L. 271-1 only where there is a failure to deliver the documents under 1° and 2° of paragraph II of Article L. 721-2, and, at the stage of the authentic deed not preceded by a preliminary agreement, those under 1° and c of 2°. The adopted PPT (6°), the draft PPT (7°) and the conclusions of the DTG (5°) are not among the documents whose absence triggers this postponement. Protection must therefore be arranged contractually, by a condition precedent.

Does an investor who already owns a unit receive the PPT on a new acquisition in the same co-ownership? Not as of right. Paragraph II of Article L. 721-2 of the Construction and Housing Code provides that the documents referred to in 1° and 3° to 7°, including the PPT and the draft PPT, are not required where the buyer already owns at least one unit in the same co-ownership. The same exception applies to ancillary units, in particular a parking space, a cellar, an attic or a garage. The multi-unit investor must therefore stipulate the obligation to deliver in the preliminary agreement.

Can a debt for charges on another unit block the acquisition? Yes. Paragraph II of Article 20 of the 1965 Law requires the notary to notify the property manager of the name of the prospective buyer or, for an SCI or an SNC, those of the corporate officers and partners, together with their spouses or civil partners (PACS). If any of these persons is already a co-owner in the building and has been served with a formal notice that has remained unsuccessful for more than forty-five days, the notary notifies that the sale cannot be concluded, and the preliminary contract is deemed null and void, with the buyer at fault, failing regularisation within thirty days.